Rajiv Sharma, J. - List is being revised. 2. Inspite of service upon the opposite party No. 3, neither he is present nor there is any request for passing over or adjournment of the case on his be­half. As per office report dated 12.5.2010, service of notice to opposite party No. 3 is deemed sufficient under Chapter VIII, Rule 12 of the Rules of the Court, 1952. 3. Heard Sri R.K. Agnihotri, learned Counsel for the petitioners and learned Standing Counsel and perused the records. 4. By means of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the orders dated 21.11.2007 and 17.3.2007 as contained in Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ petition. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that plaintiffs-petitioners have filed a suit for recovery of defaulted rent, damages for unlawful use and ejectment of the tenant Anita Rani-respondent No. 3, which was numbered as S.C.C. Suit No. 53 of 2002. Subsequently, the petitioners-plaintiff realized that due to typographical error, in the first paragraph of the plaint, instead of words "Religious Endowment", words "Religious Society" have wrongly been mentioned and as such, the plaintiffs-petitioners filed an application for amendment of the aforesaid suit. The Trial Court, vide order dated 17.3.2007, rejected the amendment application of plaintiffs-petitioners inter alia on the grounds that the plaintiffs have fully aware about the facts that petitioners are religious endowment and not the religious society under the Society Registration Act. Against the order dated 17.3.2007, the petitioners have pre­ferred a revision, which was numbered as S.C.C. Revision No. 28 of 2007. The Revisional Court, vide order dated 21.11.2007, dismissed the revision and up­holding the findings recorded by the Trial Court. Feeling aggrieved, the peti­tioners have preferred the instant writ petition inter alia on the grounds that the Court below did not consider the legal aspect of the matter as involved in the case and dismissed the amendment/correction application Ga-133. 6. Having heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel and perusing the averments made in the amendment application as well as the orders dated 17.3.2007 and 21.11.2007, I am of the opinion that the words "Religious Society" made in para-1 of the plaint are typographical error and as such, both the Courts below erred in dismissing the amendment application. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed. The orders dated 21.11.2007 and 17.3.2007 as contained in Annexures No. 1 and 2 to the writ peti­tion are hereby set-aside. The amendment application is allowed with cost of Rs. 5000/-. The plaintiffs-petitioners are directed to amend the plaint within a period fifteen days from today. The plaintiffs-petitioners are further di­rected to deposit the cost of Rs. 5000/- before the Registrar of this Court within a period of one month from today. The Registrar is directed to transmit the cost of Rs. 5000/- to the Mediation and Conciliation Centre, High Court, Lucknow Bench, -Lucknow forthwith. Petition Allowed.